Quick Jump to Sections: Accreditation, Mission Statement Review, Educational Master Plan, Title V Grant, Board of Trustees Meeting, District Consultation Council, Other, Next Meeting.
Vice President Gomez-Heitzeberg led the meeting.
For the midterm accreditation report in 2015, we need to show that we have sustained the improvements we described in our 2012 report and the follow-up report in 2013 (that we didn't just put things in place for the accreditation visits) and that we have shown progress on the actionable improvement plans we identified in the main 2012 report. The timeline is on the College Council website. This semester the focus will be the mission statement since everything is supposed to follow from the mission statement according to ACCJC standards. In the fall will be the research phase and in spring we'll summarize what we've found. [Timeline document]
We'll need to focus on student achievement data and the assessment of our Student Learning Outcomes at the course level, program level, General-Education level, and the institutional level and the distinction between student achievement and student learning.
Kate noted the accreditation standard for multi-college districts now includes one new piece that says "District/system planning and evaluation are integrated with college planning and evaluation to improve student learning and achievement and institutional efffectiveness." There will be the question, of course, of how to implement this integration. Will it be top-down, bottom-up, parallel, or what? In the follow-up report we'll need to include evidence of the effectiveness of the district office's services to the campus. The district office should have a mission statement and undergo some sort of program review process.
There was some question about the survey results for an evaluation of District Consulation Council that happened last fall. It was to include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the KCCD decision-making document. It is supposed to be posted on the District Consultation Council section of the College Council website but that hasn't happened yet. We just got the results from district IPR from last November's survey on the process we went through for the accredidation reports (2012 self-study and the 2013 follow-up).
The new committee charge for the Accreditation Institutional Quality including the membership part was approved at College Council (also approved by Senate last Wednesday).
Kate Pluta updated College Council on the work of the Mission Review Team that is leading the effort to evaluate the college's mission statement and revise it as necessary (select the link to go to their website). According to our accrediting agency ACCJC, all of the college goals, strategic plans, etc. are supposed to flow out of the college's mission statement, so we need to be sure it says what we want it to say. The mission statement also needs to be meaningful for the communities outside of the college. The MRT has developed criteria that will be used with the criteria from ACCJC for evaluating/developing the college mission statement. Their work will be finished by the end of this semester.
There is no set limit on the size of the mission statement. The proposed one is just two sentences with complex series. Some colleges have several sentences followed by a bulleted list of what the college does (so it is lengthy but complete). The length is all over the map. The second sentence includes the institutional learning outcomes.
Regarding the part of the mission statement that reflects who our students are, many (all?) high school counselors have told us that BC is a place of last resort for their students: those who attend are not academically capable of attending a four-year or do not have the wherewithal to pay for a four-year school. That sort of view of BC was also noted quite clearly in the "First Generation" movie so we do have an image problem. However, that image problem goes back decades---community college has always been third fiddle to the CSUs and UCs and CSUs are less prestigious than the UCs. One piece of data shared at the Student Success Stewardship Team meeting on Friday shows we are doing a better job than CSUB is that 51.4% of the CSU students who start out at CSU complete their degree while 71.6% of the community college students who transfer to CSUB complete their degree [need pointer to evidence]. Also, students who have completed their educational goals at BC (degree or certificate or transfer) have said that BC prepared them very well for their future careers or college studies despite what the bad rap from the high school counselors (we also heard that from one of the stars of the "First Generation" movie in gathering held in the Levan Center). We do quality work here and we've been recognized for several of our high-quality programs by those outside the college. The mission statement ought to reflect that.
The "demonstrate competencies" part of the proposed mission statement is geared toward the career-technical education programs where the student learning outcomes are measured by how well the students can perform job-specific tasks, so they need to be able to demonstrate their skills.
Brief update on the Educational Master Plan (EMP). The Facilities Master Plan is supposed to flow out of the EMP. See my March 21st report for details on the Facilities Master Plan. The EMP is updated every three years and it needs to include: what were doing in the transfer part of our mission, what we're doing in pre-collegiate skills, what we're doing in career-technical education, our technology plan, and our rural communities initiatives. We have identified needs over the last couple of years and have various initiatives going including Habits of Mind, student success task force, Achieving the Dream, etc. It'll include the Student Success Support Plan and the Student Equity Plan. It'll also include our work toward getting a Title V Grant "Making it Possible" that'll focus on pre-collegiate level students. There are groups that are starting up to work on the various parts of the EMP. Manny Mourtzanos is heading the transfer part. Bonnie Suderman and Liz Rozell are leading the pre-collegiate skills part. Rich McCrow and Leah Carter are leading the career-technical education part.
The goal of the various EMP groups is to tell our story so it will be more of a narrative instead of a bunch of dry facts. A team will pull it all together in a coherent whole so the final report speaks with one voice. The team is the same one that is working with us on the AB86 plan (adult education). There will be a draft of the EMP finished by May 15th and a final draft on June 9th for College Council to study/approve in the Fall 2014 semester. [EMP description document link]
Ann Tatum, Pam Boyles, and Janet Fulks gave the status of our work preparing for our Title V Grant application due on May 9th. This is a grant for Hispanic-Serving Institutions of about $500K that we'll use to figure out how to best improve the basic skills of a cohort of Hispanic pre-collegiate students with the longer-term goal of scaling it up to all first-time students within five years. Numbers of students served in the following years of the grant are 800 in the second year and 1500 in the third year. The grant will fund a number of high-touch, intrusive intervention efforts toward these students. The cohort is a group of 454 Cal-SOAP students. Cal-SOAP (California Student Opportunity and Access Program) is a statewide program operating through the CSUs that is designed to increase the number of students attending college. It was established by the state legislature in 1978. The program serves students that are from low-income families, will be the first in their family to attend college, or are from areas or schools with low-eligibility or college-going rates.
Achieving the Dream is looking at the same cohort as their "core first cohort", so this grant will dovetail nicely with those efforts. Our Multiple-Measures Assessment Project team of Counseling, ACDV, Math and English faculty worked with the same cohort. Although Cal-SOAP is a state program, the Title V Grant is a federally-funded effort through the US Department of Education. The cohort will be called the "transfer: making it happen cohort" and the grant will be referred to as "Making it Possible" at BC. The grant requires institutions to develop the programs that can be sustainably funded by the institution after the grant runs out, so it is intended to fund a research effort that leads to a sustained change in how the institution interacts/serves all of the students.
Things we'll be using the grant to fund include (not a complete list): supporting the accelerated options for basic skills, supporting the multiple measures work which is very labor-intensive, computer-assisted lab learning, contextualized pathways, predictive analytics, finding out where our students are exiting to see if we can find the most effective intervention that will retain the students. The focus is more direct service to students and not changes to our infrastructure and facilities.
Discussion brought up the need to have a central repository of the grants being used at BC---a website that people could go to find out the status of the grants and what things were developed using past grants. There are number of good things at BC that people don't know about. Hopefully, the new website for the Educational Master Plan will fill some of that need at least.
Side note: we are NOT far enough along with the implementation of SARS-ALRT (our new early alert system funded by the C-6 grant) to satisfy the requirements of the C-6 grant. All of the hardware and software are in place but the personnel piece of the early alert system has not been figured out (decided upon) yet. The college may have to pay back to C-6 for the SARS-ALRT package since we have not gotten it implemented. The early alert system is in our accreditation self-study report's Actionable Improvement Plan #2.
The latest Board of Trustees meeting was held at Bakersfield College on April 10th in Forum West. Two main topics of concern for the college were persuading the board to write a resolution or letter to the state chancellor's office in favor of having a Baccalaureate program in one of the applied disciplines such as nursing or industrial technology and persuading the board to keep the minimum budget reserves level at the 5% level. A number of articulate individuals spoke on both of the topics. (President Christian posted some of the presenters' written comments on the April 27th posting of her blog.) The board listened to all of the arguments against raising the minimum budget reserve level but the comments were made too late in the process because the board members already had their minds made up by the April 10th meeting. After silently listening to the comments, they immediately voted unanimously to raise the minimum budget reserve level.
The board was a bit more receptive to the comments and urgings of people, including the nursing students, speaking in favor of having a Baccalaureate program at BC. The board eventually ended up writing a letter of support in favor of being one of the districts to pilot a Baccalaureate program after they found out that extra funding from the state would come to properly fund the upper division classes needed for such a program. At the May 8th meeting they'll consider a formal resolution in support of being a pilot for the Baccalaureate program.
The Facilities Master Plan Addendum for Bakersfield College will also be reviewed (acted upon?) at the May 8th BOT meeting. The meeting will be at Cerro Coso. Meetings at colleges are usually NOT streamed live over the web. Perhaps our online-heavy high-tech sister college could model streaming the meeting?
Budget: See the 2014-15 Preliminary Allocation (Excel workbook) posted on the Budget Committee's website. BC will get about $2.06 million more than in 2013-14. Districtwide costs are proposed to grow a total of $764,140 including several new management positions. District operations chargeback for BC is proposed to be $14.3 million or 66.9% of the total. Next year FTES target has BC getting 67.9% FTES for the district.
Sue Vaughn reported from the DCC meeting about a lengthy presentation given by our district CFO, Tom Burke. Last year BC exceeded its FTES target as intended, so that we could possibly capture extra dollars allocated to the California Community College System left over from other districts not meeting their FTES targets. That extra money came in February 2014. That extra money is in our reserves now for use next year. Therefore, there's about a two-year lagtime between expenditures for growth and utilizing income from that given expenditure year. Approximately, a half million was spent this year adding sections + hiring extra adjuncts so that we can capture growth money.
Nan Gomez-Heitzeberg reported that there are several additional positions (3) in IT, an additional position of an associate vice-chancellor in Human Resources, among others. There are valid reasons for those positions but how do we engage in a discussion of the priority of those positions over other critically-needed personnel at the colleges?
The 100 FTES we loaned Cerro Coso last year was not discussed in the budget presentation at DCC. Cerro Coso continues in "hold harmless" but they did grow slightly last year. The 100 FTES issue was a bit murky at College Council. I need to get clarification. For this year, BC is already exceeding its FTES target without claiming anything from the coming summer session.
Baccalaureate Degree: breaking news from Cindy Collier at the meeting was the SB-850 legislation just passed the Education committee at the Senate where it has been worked on for several months (at least). Now moves on to Senate appropriations. If it passes that, it would move to the Senate floor. The legislation would still have to go through the same sort of machinations in the Assembly. The soonest it would get to the Governor's desk is 2015. The bill coming out of the Higher Education committee was revised three days ago to make it more palatable to the three main opposition groups: California Nurses Association, CSUs, and Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges (a professional/trade membership organization, not a union). CNA removed their opposition to the new version and CSUs are now neutral. The Bill Analysis document dated April 22nd states that besides CNA, the opposition was California Teachers Association (our faculty union CCA is under the CTA) and FACCC, not CSUs but perhaps a state-funded organization wouldn't be listed in the Bill Analysis document (?).
Four-Day Summer Work Schedule: some question about whether or not the college can determine for itself to go with a 4-day work week or if the district office has a say in that. Classified reps said it should be up to the college to decide. Questions for us: Any desire to go to a 4-day work week during the summer? Any desire to go to a 4-day work week THIS summer? College Council said "yes" to both.
Academic Calendar: Copies of 2015-16 and 2016-17 calendars posted on the DCC meetings section of the College Council website. The posted 2016-17 calendar does not show the revision passed at the Senate meeting that moves the Saturday after Thanksgiving instruction day to the start of the school year like we have for 2015-16. We need to get the approved calendar from the Senate office.
Come to the 20th Chicano/Latino Commencement Celebration, which will be held on May 8th in the BC Cafeteria, at 6:30pm. This is an opportunity to recognize our graduates and transferees. It will be conducted bilingually (English and Spanish) to embrace and share with the family and friends that are primarily Spanish speaking. Students will be given one minute to acknowledge and/or recognize those who have contributed to their accomplishment. Please RSVP to JoAnn Acosta at email@example.com so that we have enough seating.
Next College Council meeting will be May 2, 2014.
Last updated: May 1, 2014
Document author: Nick Strobel